tv [untitled] April 8, 2011 7:00pm-7:30pm PDT
would cause more than 26,000 buildings to be unusable until they are repaired or replaced. more than 3000 would need to be demolished. that scenario would spark about 73 fires that would require professional firefighting response and would burn more than 88 million square feet that had not previously been damaged. it would cause about 1500 injuries that require hospitalization and that to about 300 deaths. it would have far-reaching consequences in terms of housing, business, and many other things. we found that earthquake will leave about 83,000 housing units and replaceable. we know from the low-income and rental housing, they are the slowest to come back after a major disaster. we also have predictions on what
will happen to businesses. basically, the city is vulnerable to earthquakes. we have old buildings that are likely to be damaged. we worked with our committee and we all came up with 17 key recommendations. i will not describe them all, but i will go through three important ones. the city should require a retrofit of all the stuff story buildings. one of our reports is dedicated to describing the risk of these buildings in detail and analyzing what is required to fit them. we know that retrofits are very effective. we know that this type of building is responsible for about 1/3 of the housing units that would not be usable after an earthquake. it would make a significant impact. another recommendation is that all buildings be required to be
evaluated. this would allow people to know what they should expect from a building when they are going to make a purchase or a rental decision. it is not factored into their decisions because people think is either terrible or fine. seismic risk really doesn't run into the market price of a building and we think it should. a big recommendation is that we think the city should have a plan over many years to analyze all of the buildings in this city and require a retrofit of important buildings that have an unacceptable seismic vulnerability. our city has been built over many decades and it will take many decades to solve the problem. we think san francisco has taken a very important step in facing this problem and analyzing what
the problem is, the scope and characteristic of the problem. even though the plan we recommended to spans many decades, it is important to start now. supervisor mar: supervisor cohen has a question. supervisor cohen: i am curious to know, this is the first time i am seeing the policy recommendations. and also this charge. i wanted to know if there was a specific plan for public housing residents or evaluating the housing the public stock, particularly those that are slated for rebuilding. >> the project only covers privately owned buildings and. we did not cover buildings under
by the city. recovered some affordable housing, but i am not exactly sure how much was covered in the analysis. >> i would assume that it is not in the analysis. dr. lee did not analyze government buildings or infrastructure. it comes to reject from damage to privately owned buildings. >> if i might add to that. through the capital planning committee, we are embarking on a similar the valuation process of city-owned buildings. with respect to the housing authority, that is not city- owned either. but we are working closely with them on the rebuilding that you mentioned. it would address safety issues. for those not slated to go
through that process, we can look at conducting that kind of evaluation. a lot of affordable housing is privately owned. that was proposition a that failed. that was trying to get public money to help those privately owned, but serving a very key public purpose. >> which organization? >> it is updating the evaluation we haven't done half of the earthquake in the 90's. >> we don't have levees that will break, but a lot of the neighborhoods are in the southeast part of the city, and we are also undergoing the
rebuild. so when you talk about safety issues, that is very broad. it can be opening up a dead-end streets. i am concerned and i am raising him how voice to this concern about how we are defining public safety. you may have wondered to housing residents at a meeting and public comment participating. but if you think about it, sunnyvale has over 700 units. and the families and the children. i saw that you took into consideration senior housing. i guess is most likely probably
private. i would like for you to be thoughtful going forward about your analysis including housing units. i think from what i see, it looks very thorough. it would be nice to see this added level of detail that would have an impact on a fairly significant swath of san francisco. >> really have the luxury with buildings that are publicly on of being able to actually do a more thorough inspection right away. we don't have to worry about private ownership interest. we are undertaking that process to look at public buildings and making sure we are protecting them at a parallel path as well.
i know that the mayor's office on disability has worked with the department of emergency management to do an overlay to identify the places that the members of the disabled community live the that we know where the housing units are. so that they have a plan for helping those folks, evacuating them if we have a seismic event. we are definitely doing those kind of things on a parallel track with the public sector buildings. >> i want to assure you that the report to the housing into effect and we had to narrow it down to something that was finite that we could get our arms around. it was only the privately owned property. it should scare all of us that
85,000 housing units are expected to be unusable. many of those will be lost forever after the next big earthquake. housing is the key part of where we are most vulnerable. half of the housing units were built before world war two. by and large, the commercial buildings are newer. a higher percent of those were built under codes that will give a higher level of protection. the report was completed and handed in. it is available online and is a very comprehensive project. we would be happy to come and sit down with you and go over this if you like. we are happy to do that as well.
keep in mind that the reason is is important that we move forward is that when we have our next big earthquake, 95% of residential owners do not have earthquake insurance. in the past where we have had casualties, fema has stepped in. we will not see that in the future. not only is it more expensive to repair a damaged building them to retrofit it, but there is a big question of where the money is going to come from. we still have thousands of people living in temporary housing. and our residential buildings are safer to stay and, we will have less of a need for temporary housing. the huge issue is resiliency. what will san francisco look
like after the earthquake. we saw the terrible consequences in new orleans, who when of the ideas of how we have been gauging this is if we have a much safer san francisco were the majority of people who can continue to reside in their houses, where businesses will be able to open the where social services are available, the economics of the city can get back and work faster. it will be much more apt to come back quickly. >supervisor wiener: think you very much for your work. it is still important. we have sort of been operating with our head in the sand. we have been very slow in terms
of doing what we need to do. an issue that i am very interested in is the soft story buildings. i personally think that we need to move towards that in terms of retrofitting and from what i can tell hasn't really worked. i have been having in number of discussions with a property owner groups about that to see what we need to do to have a system that will actually work in to be realistic. a couple issues that came out, what is that for a lot of these buildings, there are businesses or corner stores that are there. when you talk about doing that work, it can be extremely disruptive to the business to the point where you are shutting it down. and how would that be financed?
there is a significant cost to someone above and beyond the physical work. in terms of financing in the city facilitating financing, the bond in the 1990's, it was supposed to be divided about 60- 40 in terms of the market rate. the market rate program and has barely been touched in part because at certain times, private financing. and from what i understand because we have made it so onerous and bureaucratic to take advantage of what people wanted to deal with, we really created a bunch of that money and people were taking advantage of the market rates. how do we provide access to
financing that people will actually use to do the work? >> that is a very long question. if i don't adequately address it, anyone of us would be happy to sit down. your first point is about mandates versus voluntary programs. we did a lot of research on what communities have mandatory programs, what have voluntary programs. some people will respond to voluntary programs, voluntary incentives. by and large, projects such as this done and get implemented unless they are mandatory. it is a sad reality. where is the money going to come from? the city has a substantial financial issues. the property owners have high level of debt relative to their
value of the properties. this is going to be a major issue. as the group and level with these conflicting issues on how to deal with this was taking a look at evaluations the buildings. if property owners in the building occupants were aware of the seismic vulnerability or freedom from seismic vulnerability, the marketplace would play a role. in this schedule that each of you is given, it was our best shot at st. what is the pecking order? who should be evaluated first? who do we recommend have mandatory retrofits?
1/3 of the buildings that are expected to not be suitable for occupancy were the five or more residential units, the soft story buildings. another was the three and four- unit buildings. there is a question of sympathy for the people that are more likely on those units in buildings. we assume that they are going to be a little less capable of bearing the burden of the cost on their building. that type of thought process went through here. there were substantial problems with the funds. it was very attractive to the low and very low and come projects.
there is a lot of money that was not used in that. i think the city's controller's office has indicated it is a huge amount of money. $260 million? something on the order of $260 million of the allocation went unused. but the city comptroller's mention they will be very uncomfortable. that would be allocated to the seismic retrofit programs. >> my question is for future financing programs, how do we make it more attractive to people want to use it? and does of bureaucratic as possible? and the issue about the store's? >> many of the soft story buildings have garages on the ground floor.
zedillo was to come up with work that would be done on the first floor that would not migrate to the units that are more likely to be residential uses. there is definitely going to be a cost to the small business owners who need to be evicted for that. not evicted. to be displaced. burdened with the inconvenience. we wanted to stagger those so that we could take into account the perhaps those are some of the group's that we might want to delay some of the retrofits on. that is a huge policy issue that the board and the mayor are going to have to come up with. we feel strongly that it is
something that the mayor will have to find solutions on. we are hoping that in the and drum, evaluation of buildings is going to temporarily allow the marketplace to exert pressure and encourage people to make those who retrofits until money is available to help property owners. supervisor mar: did you want to respond to supervisor wiener's question? >> i have been within the building department for 25 years and was the chief inspector at the time of the earthquake. i have been following this for quite a long time. it is a real challenge to take it through implementation. the challenges for all of us to
understand that this coming earthquake is not a theoretical issue. scenario earthquakes are actually coming. these will happen. we are trying to look at the real estate cases that are going to have tremendous impact on the demographics of the city. if i may say just in general, the whole earthquake issue has three pieces. what you do to reduce the impact on the city, what we do a immediately after the earthquake to have a quick response, and how we recover from that. these are three pieces that are all being looked at by the city. i am very pleased that the response work for the first time, the reconstruction work of rebuilding the city for the
first time is being looked at by the city agencies. we are in pretty good shape, the services have been gearing up for years. if we can prevent damage from occurring, we significantly improve the city's resilience. i would like to say how hard it is to create affordable housing in this city, if we can do anything to preserve affordable housing, we will be way ahead. this earthquake will affect how affordable housing dramatically. we noticed that housing is really where we need to focus. the soft story buildings are the key to that. >> that also includes rent- controlled apartments? >> that is right. supervisor wiener: we also talk about bmr programs.
given the affordable housing stock. that was my concern. that it wasn't going to these rent-control the market rate buildings. >> the soft story buildings are less expensive to retrofit than other types of buildings. they are only stand on the ground floor. one of the ways that we are trying to address cost is to address the cost of the retrofit. the other agencies trying to, with a design to reduce costs, jason has been working very hard and i am sure he can speak more on that. in the meetings that went on for many years, many of the private building owners, not the owners
of buildings where there was housing that might be subsidized, but private building owners have said that this is something that they could but it privately. what we need to provide funding for might be a smaller scale than these soft story buildings. the costs are coming down because research is showing us ways we can reduce that impact of actual earthquake mitigation. i wanted to let you know how pleased i am to be working on this. it is our very first presentation to you. i hope we can move forward. we have a 30-year plan. it has to be a long-term plan to hit it all. we have to start right away to deal with the most significant impact.
>> thank you for initiating the community lead process in the city. were you done on the 17 recommendations and where we go from here? and jason elliott, from the mayor's office as well? i did want to ask a question, it refers to a 62 percent chance of an art -- 62% chance of a large earthquake. others are saying, i think one of your committee members is forecasting an event in the next six years or less. what you think about the potential of an earthquake hitting within 30 years or within six years?
>> -- >>-share on the advisory committee was a leading seismologists. we had a lot of participation from the seismic experts in the project. the answer is, we know we are surrounded by an active faults. the hayward fault is equidistance -- downtown is equidistance from the two faults. 62% -- if that is the right number, over the next 30 years, one of those folks will go. that is what we should rely on. we pick for realistic earthquakes that span size and location and came up with loss estimates to provide a scope of damage that the city can look at. i wish i could tell you when the next earthquake is going to be,
a think the analysis is the best we can get. >> one of the real heroes in terms of the volunteers, he knows that once every hundred and 50 years, the hayward fault has a major event. it has been 152 years since the fall has had a major slippage. that is one fault that we feel there is a slightly greater degree of confidence of the regularity of slippage on that. the recommendations are our recommendations. they are pretty much based upon the precepts that residents will be able to stay in their houses following an earthquake. they will quickly have access to
privately run community services. no building will collapse catastrophically. businesses in the economy will quickly return to functionality and the city's places will be preserved. we tried to give you five or six pieces of paper that distilled down 1700 pages of reports. and this is the essence of that. there are very great executive summaries in each of these reports. we would be happy to spend time with you or any of the other supervisors who discuss this. supervisor mar: let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> way back in 1989, the army was there.
we know what happened in the marina and all of the army. how statistically speaking, in 1906, we need to know and we need to a knowledge in the role of the army department of building inspection how her many years if we have an earthquake and we have all the plans, why is this area? further questions were asked and they found out that this building was not seismically retrofitted. we can talk the talk about what
is going to happen. and what happened in japan recently. if you don't have the photographs of what really happened, i can send it to you. i have it on my facebook. for those of you on my facebook. we can't play with mother nature. if we take all of the avenues. if we have an earthquake and a tsunami, there will be liquefaction. the experts are talking 1000 fold. those homes that toppled them, that is what is